Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
A novel idea would be to publish what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Seems a simple fix to me. Since rebuttals are getting chopped up, sliced and diced, and edited until they no longer convey the originally intended message, or worse gets turned into a message which might reinforce NYT's own stance, perhaps the NYT should publish Unedited rebuttals. Thereby keeping the purity of the letters, and journalism. Simply limit the number of words to say 250 or 500, and set some basic ground rules. Be professional, no profanity, verifiable facts, etc. This would of course require extra time and effort and perhaps research and fact checking on the NYT's part though. ;) Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Exactly rightand truth be told, I was embarrassed. Janine had to calm me down a bit this morning. ;-) All they had to do was leave in the term hot deserts and it would have been fine. Anyway, thank you, Rob! On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly. I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this. The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight. Adam - Original Message From: Matson, Robert D. robert.d.mat...@saic.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Hi, So appreciated. Exactly rightand truth be told, I was embarrassed..Janine had to calm me down a bit this morning. ;-) All they had to do was leave in the term hot deserts and it would have been fine. Anyway, thank you, Rob! On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
All this negative talk about the negative talk Adam, doesn't help either. Doing nothing, accomplishes nothing. If we keep our mouths shut, the media tramples us with non-facts, and the uninformed public will believe it. We have a duty to the meteorite world to publish scientifically correct information and rebuttals and to keep it truthful and factual. Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly. I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this. The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight. Adam - Original Message From: Matson, Robert D.robert.d.mat...@saic.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Facebook is irrelevant to this issue and thread. If you're truly concerned about a thread on Facebook, why not ask me about it privately rather than trying to divert this thread to what you want to talk about Mike? That seem rather disingenuous to me. I'm sure others here too think the same way. If you want to talk about a thread you think I deleted, then please elaborate to me privately. Or if you insist on doing this publicly, please start a new thread and I'll be happy to go back and forth with you on it. Eric On 4/12/2011 1:07 PM, meteoriteguy.com wrote: Is that why you deleted the Facebook thread about Steve? So the fact could be discussed or hidden? Mike Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Meteorites USAe...@meteoritesusa.com wrote: All this negative talk about the negative talk Adam, doesn't help either. Doing nothing, accomplishes nothing. If we keep our mouths shut, the media tramples us with non-facts, and the uninformed public will believe it. We have a duty to the meteorite world to publish scientifically correct information and rebuttals and to keep it truthful and factual. Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly. I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this. The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight. Adam - Original Message From: Matson, Robert D.robert.d.mat...@saic.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke - - Original Message - From: Meteorites USA e...@meteoritesusa.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter All this negative talk about the negative talk Adam, doesn't help either. Doing nothing, accomplishes nothing. If we keep our mouths shut, the media tramples us with non-facts, and the uninformed public will believe it. We have a duty to the meteorite world to publish scientifically correct information and rebuttals and to keep it truthful and factual. Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly. I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this. The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight. Adam - Original Message From: Matson, Robert D.robert.d.mat...@saic.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Hi all, I think Daryl's published (and edited) rebuttal was fine. You have to really micro it to draw the conclusion it didn't skewer the article and present a positive spin. The open mouth crowd will get the point. (I did!) Now, I'm not trying to be a smart ass...but, let me say this againRun, don't walk, from any member of the lame street media that contacts you for comment on anything. If you feel compelled to see your name in print, issue a written press release and label it as such. Media protocol prevents them from editing an official press release. They can excerpt it, but they can't change, or re-arrange words. Best to all, Count Deiro IMCA 3536 -Original Message- From: Meteorites USA e...@meteoritesusa.com Sent: Apr 12, 2011 1:05 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter All this negative talk about the negative talk Adam, doesn't help either. Doing nothing, accomplishes nothing. If we keep our mouths shut, the media tramples us with non-facts, and the uninformed public will believe it. We have a duty to the meteorite world to publish scientifically correct information and rebuttals and to keep it truthful and factual. Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly. I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this. The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight. Adam - Original Message From: Matson, Robert D.robert.d.mat...@saic.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Hi Darryl and List, You did great on the letter, and newspapers routinely edit such letters for content and length. I too have written several in the past that have been published and all of them were edited to some degree - despite my efforts to make sure such letters pass the Strunk White test. But I do agree with you, Adam and Rob about editing out key words and phrases. In a scientific context, a single word can be critical and that is why when true scholarly publications do occasionally print letters (like MAPS), such letters are not edited with a casual hand - they appear in their entirety with their context intact. The NYT has amply demonstrated that they have joined the same camp as the National Enquirer and should be viewed as such. And I am not going to automatically hold a writer in higher regard because he has a Pulitzer or two. Apparently those don't mean as much as they used to, or the award criteria has become more lax. The damage has been done, but the meteorite community as a whole can mitigate further damage by rebutting this nonsense at every opportunity. The IMCA has now done so and several key figures in the meteorite community have done so. The rest of the rank and file collectors and dealers should post comments on blogs, post in forums, and send letters to editors - to make sure that the truth of this matter is heard. I don't think this NYT piece was the end of the world as we know it, but I don't think it should be trivialized either. Thankfully, the general public seems to have forgotten it already. Right after the article was published, the link was being widely posted and discussed on Facebook. I spent the better part of an entire evening rebutting the article in comment threads on Facebook alone. A barrage of emails and forum posts followed that. But now the buzz seems to have died and I have not seen or heard about it on any of the social networking sites since the first day after publication. This is one of those cases where the mass public's short attention span is a blessing. ;) Best regards and happy huntings, MikeG -- Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone Ironworks Meteorites Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone EOM - http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=1564 --- On 4/12/11, Darryl Pitt dar...@dof3.com wrote: Hi, So appreciated. Exactly rightand truth be told, I was embarrassed..Janine had to calm me down a bit this morning. ;-) All they had to do was leave in the term hot deserts and it would have been fine. Anyway, thank you, Rob! On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list --
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Walter, list, Mr. Burke is right of course. But All that is necessary for the desaster of evil is that good men do nothing is right as well, in another perspective. And it isn't any kind of apeacement. Darryl, like Anne you've done a pretty good job. They - NYT - do know now that they've got a neighbor who's (German saying) watching their fingers. So let's continue to confront them with our arguments as well as our silence. We've got the perfect teachers: meteorites. They don't. Best as ever, friends, Matthias - Original Message - From: Walter Branch waltbra...@bellsouth.net To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke - - Original Message - From: Meteorites USA e...@meteoritesusa.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter All this negative talk about the negative talk Adam, doesn't help either. Doing nothing, accomplishes nothing. If we keep our mouths shut, the media tramples us with non-facts, and the uninformed public will believe it. We have a duty to the meteorite world to publish scientifically correct information and rebuttals and to keep it truthful and factual. Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:57 PM, Adam Hupe wrote: I agree with what Rob said about changing the context even slightly. I think it best to avoid all forms of media these days, good or bad. Grave talk of land-owner swindles, smuggling, black markets, fraud and lawsuits we have been exposed to lately in the press has already done an untold amount of damage. It is unlikely that this avocation can survive much more of this. The damage is real, accumulates over time and can't be done overnight. Adam - Original Message From: Matson, Robert D.robert.d.mat...@saic.com To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 12:40:15 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Hinweis von ESET Smart Security, Signaturdatenbank-Version 6037 (20110412) __ E-Mail wurde geprüft mit ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __ Hinweis von ESET Smart Security, Signaturdatenbank-Version 6037 (20110412) __ E-Mail wurde
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Just a thought here and I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but would it be any difference to present the rebuttal as an editorial? Aren't editorials published unedited or am I wrong? Stuart McDaniel Lawndale, NC Secr., Cleve. Co. Astronomical Society IMCA #9052 Member - KCA, KBCA, CDUSA -Original Message- From: Meteorites USA Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:52 PM To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter A novel idea would be to publish what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Seems a simple fix to me. Since rebuttals are getting chopped up, sliced and diced, and edited until they no longer convey the originally intended message, or worse gets turned into a message which might reinforce NYT's own stance, perhaps the NYT should publish Unedited rebuttals. Thereby keeping the purity of the letters, and journalism. Simply limit the number of words to say 250 or 500, and set some basic ground rules. Be professional, no profanity, verifiable facts, etc. This would of course require extra time and effort and perhaps research and fact checking on the NYT's part though. ;) Regards, Eric On 4/12/2011 12:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct specimens of Mars and 43 distinct specimens of the Moon, as well as other exotic samples, have been discovered in the hot deserts since the mid-1990s---all of which have undergone study. Conversely, not one such specimen was recovered by scientists IN THESE REGIONS [emphasis mine] before this time, and since then scientists have recovered only four such specimens. This significant error of omission invites researchers in-the-know to accuse Darryl of being uninformed, and by inference unfairly calling into question his credentials for opining on the subject. This is the problem with journalists uneducated in scientific disciplines -- they don't appreciate the nuances introduced by the seemingly harmless removal of a word here, or a short phrase there. The sciences are not like prose: every word is usually there for a reason. --Rob __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter
Hi List, No doubt I'm aware that 'news'papers edit letterI was primarily referring to the degree that context changed from Darryl's precise words. Adam's advice rings HUGELY truewe should shun the presses that have agendas: even highly finely crafted words will be slaughtered to bend the intent. The NYT has been at it for over a decade. I suspect we all are defending our passion in meteorites to all who've been asking us (like I've been lately), Hey, did you see that article about your meteorites and their black market?to which I personally take the golden opportunity to not only point out the validity of collecting/studying, but then the invalidity of slanderous NYT publications, but finish with references and direct links to letters with true un-edited text (thanks Anne and Darryl, again). It's just one small drop in the water (but then again so was Tagish lake, which happened to be frozen)...but it will eventually render hyperbole s**t journalism to the m-wrong pile. My salute to all of you! Richard Montgoemry - Original Message - From: Michael Gilmer meteoritem...@gmail.com To: Darryl Pitt dar...@dof3.com Cc: Janine Jaquet janine.jaq...@columbia.edu; Meteorite-list List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; Matson, Robert D. robert.d.mat...@saic.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Darryl's edited NYT letter Hi Darryl and List, You did great on the letter, and newspapers routinely edit such letters for content and length. I too have written several in the past that have been published and all of them were edited to some degree - despite my efforts to make sure such letters pass the Strunk White test. But I do agree with you, Adam and Rob about editing out key words and phrases. In a scientific context, a single word can be critical and that is why when true scholarly publications do occasionally print letters (like MAPS), such letters are not edited with a casual hand - they appear in their entirety with their context intact. The NYT has amply demonstrated that they have joined the same camp as the National Enquirer and should be viewed as such. And I am not going to automatically hold a writer in higher regard because he has a Pulitzer or two. Apparently those don't mean as much as they used to, or the award criteria has become more lax. The damage has been done, but the meteorite community as a whole can mitigate further damage by rebutting this nonsense at every opportunity. The IMCA has now done so and several key figures in the meteorite community have done so. The rest of the rank and file collectors and dealers should post comments on blogs, post in forums, and send letters to editors - to make sure that the truth of this matter is heard. I don't think this NYT piece was the end of the world as we know it, but I don't think it should be trivialized either. Thankfully, the general public seems to have forgotten it already. Right after the article was published, the link was being widely posted and discussed on Facebook. I spent the better part of an entire evening rebutting the article in comment threads on Facebook alone. A barrage of emails and forum posts followed that. But now the buzz seems to have died and I have not seen or heard about it on any of the social networking sites since the first day after publication. This is one of those cases where the mass public's short attention span is a blessing. ;) Best regards and happy huntings, MikeG -- Mike Gilmer - Galactic Stone Ironworks Meteorites Website - http://www.galactic-stone.com Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/galacticstone News Feed - http://www.galactic-stone.com/rss/126516 Twitter - http://twitter.com/galacticstone EOM - http://www.encyclopedia-of-meteorites.com/collection.aspx?id=1564 --- On 4/12/11, Darryl Pitt dar...@dof3.com wrote: Hi, So appreciated. Exactly rightand truth be told, I was embarrassed..Janine had to calm me down a bit this morning. ;-) All they had to do was leave in the term hot deserts and it would have been fine. Anyway, thank you, Rob! On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Matson, Robert D. wrote: Hi All, The main problem with the Times' editing of Darryl's submission is that they altered his factually correct letter into an inaccurate (or at best, misleading) one. The following sentences appeared in the Times' edited version: As a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 specimens from Mars and 43 specimens from the Moon have been discovered in the deserts since the mid-1990s. The number of such specimens recovered by scientists beforehand? Not one. Since the mid-1990s? Just four. Now compare this with what Darryl actually submitted: ... as a result of the harvesting done by Bedouins, Berbers and others, 32 istinct
